DISTRICT   CONSUMER   DISPUTES   REDRESSAL  FORUM.  BOLANGIR.

                                ……………………………………………

Presents:-

                                1. Sri P.Samantara, President.

                                2. Sri  G.K.Rath, Member.

                                3. Smt. S.Rath, Member.

                                Dated Bolangir the  13^th  day of July 2016.

                                 C.C.No.5 9 of  2015.

Raghunath  Rath, son of late Nabin Kumar Rath, At- Raghunathpara, Titilagarh.

P.O/P.S- Titilagarh,  Dist- Bolangir.

                                                                                                                      ..                    ..     Complainant.

                                    -Versus-

The Chairman and Managing Director, IRCTC, B-, th Floor, Statesman House,

Barakhamba Road, New Delhi- .

                                                                                                                       ..                   ..     Opp.Party.

Adv.for the complainant- None.

Adv. for the  O.P.              – None.

                                                                                                  Date of filing of the case- 5.8.2015

                                                                                                  Date of order.                   –13.07.2016

JUDGMENT.

Sri G.K.Rath, Member.

1.                  The fact of the case in brief is that  the complainant purchased an advance reservation ticket on dt.25.07.2015 in train No.12843 vide PNR No.6742970381 from Titilagarh to Nagpur. The complainant during his journey, the said train made an order for a casserole meal which cost was Rs 100/- as enquired from the pantry car boy. The complainant informed him about the actual cost of that meal is of Rs 45/- but the boy refused to supply the same at Rs 45/- . On compulsion the complainant took that meal at Rs 100/-. The meal supplied by the boy of the pantry car, was not a standard one and it was not as per the standard prescribed by the O.P. The pantry boy has issued a receipt showing the cost of the casserole meal vide cash receipt No.6388 and the complainant came to know from the said receipt that one R.K. Associates  and  Hoteliers  Pvt. Ltd.  is the licensee of the pantry car authorized by the  M.D. IRCTC.

2.              The complainant in support of his case has filed photo copy of the Train reservation ticket and the meal receipt.

3.                The O.P after  getting notice from the present forum, did not appear nor file any version by remaining absent.

4.        Perused the complaint petition and the documents filed by the complainant. The complainant during the course of his argument vehemently argued the issue in his support by referring the documents filed by him. Admittedly he boarded the train vide No.12843 vide PNR No.6742970381 from Titilagarh to Nagpur. Therefore he is a consumer under the provision of the C.P.Act  being paid the Train fare.

5.                        The complainant has purchased the ticket from Titilagarh Railway station for his journey from Titilagarh to Nagpur. Titilagarh comes under the jurisdiction of Bolangir,  District. Therefore this forum has the territorial jurisdiction to entertain this case.

6.                       That the complainant on dated 25.07.2015  has purchased ticket for his journey and filed this case before this forum on dated 5.8.2015 .Therefore the present disputed case is within the period of limitation.

7.                         In view of the discussion made above, the case is maintainable. Perusal of the complaint petition at para “E”- shows that “as per letter No. 2012/T.G.111/631/9 New Delhi dated 21.12.2012, addressed to to all the G.M. All Indian Railways and the M.D. IRCTC, New Delhi vide commercial circular lNo.78 of 2012 ,the revised chart i.e provided wherein it is clearly mentioned  that the cost of one casserole meal  is Rs 45/-. The complainant has filed the complaint petition by giving supporting foot note affidavit. We found nothing on record to disbelieve the aforesaid statement of the complainant. Therefore, we have nothing but to believe that the cost of casserole meal is of Rs 45/- but the Licensee of that Pantry car has taken Rs 100/- as per his sweet will by violating the circular issued by the O.P. and thereby committed unfair business practice.

8.                      That in view of the several decisions of the Hon”ble State Commissions as well  as National Commission, as reported in the C.P.R, as well as in other monthly journals, any omission and commission made by the Agent, the principal is liable for the same. In the present case the licensee is working under the O.P, therefore the O.P is liable to compensate for the omission and commission committed by the Licensee. Hence ordered;

                                                           ORDER.

                       The O.P is directed to refund the excess price of Rs 55/- [Rupees Fifty-five] along with Rs 1000/-[ Rupees one thousand] only, towards compensation and litigation expenses within thirty days of this order failing which the entire amount shall carry interest  at the rate of 7%  per annum till payment.

ORDER PROUNCED IN THE OPEN FORUM THIS THE 13^TH   DAY OF JULY 2016.

              [P.Samantara]                                   [S.Rath]                                                  [G.K.Rath]

                PRESIDENT.                                    MEMBER.                                               MEMBER